IntelLens

Turn prospect research into sales-ready psychological intel.

IntelLens is a prospect-intelligence workspace for B2B consultancies and sales teams that turns messy research into a structured, evidence-backed PRD-style brief. It scores research quality, enriches missing data, maps power and vulnerability, and generates an execution-ready contact sequence with strict source attribution.

Business Goals

  • Increase qualified outbound reply rate by 20% within 90 days for teams using the product.
  • Reduce prospect research preparation time by 60% within 8 weeks.
  • Improve meeting-to-opportunity conversion by 15% within 2 quarters.
  • Achieve 35% weekly active usage among invited sales users within 60 days of onboarding.

User Goals

  • Get a complete prospect brief in under 10 minutes from raw notes.
  • Identify the real decision-makers and their authority levels without manual org-chart hunting.
  • Find only tensions the consultant can actually solve, ranked by relevance.
  • Generate 3-email outreach and discovery guidance that feels specific to the prospect.
  • Know exactly which claims are verified, inferred, or still unproven.

Non-Goals

  • Not a generic CRM or pipeline management system.
  • Not a full web-scraping platform for arbitrary research at scale.
  • Not a content generator for broad marketing copy unrelated to prospect-specific intelligence.
  • Not a legal, financial, or compliance advisory tool that makes decisions on behalf of the user.

Enterprise AE Carlos, 34 - Carlos sells strategic consulting engagements to mid-market and enterprise buyers. He needs to quickly understand who matters, what pressures they face, and how to approach them without sounding generic.

Enterprise AE Carlos, 34

  • As an AE, I want to upload prospect research and immediately see a quality score, so that I know whether I can trust the brief or need more enrichment.
  • As an AE, I want to see the primary stakeholder and their influence path, so that I can target the right person first.
  • As an AE, I want a tailored outreach sequence grounded in evidence, so that my emails get replies from senior buyers.

Consulting Partner Elena, 47 - Elena sells high-ticket advisory work and cares about protecting credibility. She wants a forensic view of the prospect’s internal pressure and a way to avoid wasting time on low-fit accounts.

Consulting Partner Elena, 47

  • As a partner, I want the product to flag when my expertise does not match the prospect’s tensions, so that I do not force a bad pitch.
  • As a partner, I want contradictions and risks explained with evidence, so that I can enter a meeting prepared.
  • As a partner, I want objection handling tailored to my service type, so that I can defend price and timing discussions credibly.

Revenue Ops Analyst Priya, 29 - Priya supports the sales team and standardizes account research. She needs repeatable outputs, traceability, and clean data for internal review.

Revenue Ops Analyst Priya, 29

  • As an ops analyst, I want source labels and confidence levels on every statement, so that the team can audit the output quickly.
  • As an ops analyst, I want missing-data gaps to trigger enrichment automatically, so that coverage is consistent across accounts.
  • As an ops analyst, I want exports and structured fields, so that the intelligence can be pushed into CRM or shared in docs.

Research Quality Scoring · High priority

  • Score incoming prospect research across stakeholders, financials, operational evidence, and recent events/competitive context before any deeper analysis.
  • Assign a 0–100 score from four 25-point dimensions.
  • Display the reason for each dimension score and the overall confidence level.
  • Trigger automatic enrichment when the score is below the threshold or stakeholder count is insufficient.
  • Preserve all source markers on imported facts and enriched facts separately.

Stakeholder Validation and Power Mapping · High priority

  • Identify and validate real stakeholders, classify authority, and map who is primary, secondary, or tertiary for outreach.
  • Require full name, explicit role, source date, and company mention for validation.
  • Determine budget, domain, and influence authority for each person.
  • Support multiple stakeholders per account and flag missing decision-maker coverage.
  • Show an org-style view with direct and indirect influence relationships.

Tension Detection and Relevance Filtering · High priority

  • Detect contradictions in the account narrative and classify them by root cause, then filter by consultant relevance.
  • Support at least seven root-cause categories including financial, operational, technology, leadership, market, cultural, and messaging failure.
  • Score each tension against the consultant’s service type from 0.00 to 1.00.
  • Hide tensions below 0.60 from the main output while retaining them in an appendix or debug view.
  • Require source-backed contradiction pairs, not generic industry patterns.

Strategy Generation · High priority

  • Generate a contact plan with three emails, a discovery call framework, objection handling, and LinkedIn fallback based on the strongest qualifying tension.
  • Produce a TO / CONTACT / TIMING / CONTEXT header for each email.
  • Write three sequential emails with distinct psychological intent: pattern recognition, urgency, and low-risk solution.
  • Generate a minute-by-minute discovery call outline with positioning and objection pivots.
  • Include service-type-specific objection handling for strategy and technology engagements.

Traceability and Confidence Reporting · Medium priority

  • Explain what is verified, enriched, inferred, or assumed in the final output so the user can judge risk.
  • Label every statement with one of four source markers.
  • Show the enrichment search summary and remaining gaps.
  • Provide a structured recommendation when key data remains missing.
  • Allow export of the confidence report separately from the full brief.

Research Intake to Brief

  • Paste prospect notes and consultant profile into a single intake form.
  • Choose service type: technology, strategy, or combined engagement.
  • System calculates initial quality score in under 5 seconds.
  • If gaps exist, enrichment runs automatically and shows live progress.
  • Review validated stakeholders, tensions, and recommended outreach.
  • Export the full brief or send it to CRM in under 10 minutes total time-to-value.

1. Intake and Normalize

  • User pastes raw prospect research and consultant context. The system extracts entities, dates, roles, and claims into a structured workspace.
  • Detect names, roles, company, dates, metrics, and competitor mentions.
  • Reject obvious garbage or injection attempts before processing.
  • Show the parsed source fragments side by side with the original text.

2. Score Research Quality

  • The app scores the input across stakeholders, financials, operational evidence, and recency/competition coverage.
  • Display dimension-level scores and an overall grade.
  • Explain missing categories as explicit gaps.
  • If the score is below threshold, launch enrichment automatically.

3. Enrich and Validate

  • The system searches for missing stakeholders, financial data, recent events, and competitor context using web sources.
  • Require citations and timestamps for every enriched fact.
  • Mark unsupported claims as assumptions rather than facts.
  • Stop enrichment when sufficient validation is reached or when gaps remain unresolved.

4. Map Power and Tensions

  • The app identifies who matters and which contradictions are real and relevant to the consultant’s offering.
  • Classify stakeholders by authority and likely role in the buying process.
  • Filter tensions below relevance threshold.
  • Explain why each selected tension matters psychologically and commercially.

5. Generate Contact Plan

  • The system writes a complete outreach sequence and discovery framework tailored to the strongest tension.
  • Create three emails with clear objectives and CTA progression.
  • Provide objection handling for internal team, existing agency, timing, and price.
  • Offer a LinkedIn alternative if email confidence is low.

Power User Capabilities

  • Multi-account batch analysis with side-by-side scoring and export.
  • CRM sync to Salesforce and HubSpot for account notes and stakeholder fields.
  • Custom relevance matrix by consultant service type and sector.
  • Evidence audit view that filters by verified, enriched, inferred, or assumed claims.
  • Version history so users can compare changes after new research is added.

Interface Principles

  • Forensic, high-contrast layout with clear source markers on every claim.
  • Inline confidence chips so users can scan verified versus inferred content quickly.
  • Fast keyboard-first workflow for power users pasting and iterating on accounts.
  • Accessible color use with non-color cues for status and confidence.
  • Progressive rendering so scoring appears first and enrichment streams in without blocking the page.

Carlos gets a new target account with a few messy notes, a LinkedIn snippet, and one vague financial headline. He pastes everything into IntelLens and within minutes sees that the research is thin, the main stakeholder is not the real decision-maker, and the only compelling tension is a technology-process mismatch his service can actually influence.

The system enriches the missing leadership and event data, then filters out irrelevant tensions that would waste Carlos’s time. It generates a three-email sequence that acknowledges the prospect’s situation, creates urgency around a visible contradiction, and offers a low-risk next step that preserves the buyer’s ego.

Carlos enters the conversation with a specific hypothesis, named stakeholders, and a clear reason to ask for a meeting. Instead of sending generic outreach, he opens with evidence, which improves reply quality, shortens qualification cycles, and helps the team focus on accounts where they can actually win.

User-Centric Metrics

  • Average time from paste-to-brief under 10 minutes for 80% of sessions.
  • At least 90% of generated briefs include a validated primary stakeholder or an explicit gap warning.
  • User-rated usefulness score of 4.5/5 or higher on final briefs.
  • Reduce manual research steps by 60% compared with baseline workflow.

Business Metrics

  • 15% lift in positive outbound reply rate within two quarters.
  • 20% increase in qualified meeting-to-opportunity conversion within 6 months.
  • 30% of activated teams using the product weekly after 90 days.
  • <5% monthly churn among active team plans after product-market fit stabilizes.

Technical Metrics

  • 99.9% uptime for the brief generation service.
  • P95 response time under 3 seconds for scoring and under 30 seconds for enrichment-assisted output.
  • Zero critical data-loss incidents and encrypted storage for all account data.
  • All external sources stored with citation metadata and retrieval timestamps.

Tracking Plan

  • track_intake_submitted
  • track_initial_score_calculated
  • track_enrichment_started
  • track_stakeholder_validated
  • track_tension_selected
  • track_email_sequence_generated
  • track_export_or_crm_sync_completed

Technical Needs

  • React or Next.js frontend for the interactive brief workspace.
  • Node.js or Python backend for orchestration, scoring, and enrichment workflows.
  • PostgreSQL for structured account, stakeholder, and citation storage.
  • Queue system such as Redis Queue, BullMQ, or Celery for long-running enrichment jobs.
  • LLM orchestration layer with strict schema validation and citation enforcement.
  • Search/indexing layer such as Elasticsearch or Postgres full-text search for source retrieval.
  • Object storage for raw research uploads and enrichment snapshots.

Integration Points

  • OpenAI or Anthropic for structured extraction and generation.
  • Google Search API or a compliant web search provider for enrichment.
  • LinkedIn URL capture and manual import flows, with optional sales-intel enrichment providers such as Hunter.io or RocketReach.
  • Salesforce and HubSpot for CRM sync.
  • Slack or email notifications for completion alerts and collaborative review.

Data Storage & Privacy

  • Store source citations, timestamps, and raw snippets separately from generated analysis.
  • Encrypt sensitive data at rest and in transit using standard cloud KMS and TLS.
  • Provide tenant isolation for team accounts and role-based access controls.
  • Support GDPR and CCPA deletion requests for imported research and derived profiles.
  • Avoid storing personal data beyond what is necessary for prospecting and auditability.

Scalability & Performance

  • Use async jobs for enrichment so large accounts do not block the UI.
  • Cache validated search results to reduce repeated web lookups.
  • Paginate and lazy-load evidence panels for large research sets.
  • Design for multi-tenant concurrency so several analysts can run batches in parallel.

Potential Challenges

  • Hallucinated claims from the language model; mitigate with schema validation, citation enforcement, and a hard no-source-no-claim rule.
  • Search noise and stale enrichment results; mitigate with source recency thresholds and prioritization of primary sources.
  • Overfitting the relevance matrix to one consultant type; mitigate with configurable service profiles and transparent scoring.
  • Privacy concerns around scraping personal data; mitigate with allowed-source policies, consent-aware usage, and deletion workflows.
  • Long enrichment latency on weakly documented companies; mitigate with visible progress, partial results, and fail-safe disclaimer mode.

Team & resourcing - Small team - 2 full-stack engineers, 1 product designer, 1 part-time PM, and shared GTM support.

Phase 1: Intake and Scoring MVP · Weeks 1–3

  • Paste-in research form
  • Initial 4-dimension quality score
  • Basic source markers and confidence labels
  • Single-account brief export

Phase 2: Enrichment and Stakeholder Validation · Weeks 4–7

  • Automated gap detection
  • Web enrichment pipeline
  • Validated stakeholder cards
  • Authority classification and power map view

Phase 3: Tension Analysis and Outreach Generator · Weeks 8–11

  • Root-cause tension detection
  • Relevance scoring by service type
  • Three-email sequence generator
  • Discovery call and objection-handling script

Phase 4: Team Workflow and Integrations · Weeks 12–16

  • CRM sync for Salesforce and HubSpot
  • Batch analysis
  • Version history
  • Slack/email notifications and export templates

Paste this into Cursor, Bolt, Lovable, or v0 to start building.

Build a SaaS web app called IntelLens for B2B consultancies and sales teams. The app takes two inputs: 1) raw prospect research pasted by the user and 2) a consultant profile describing the problem solved, expertise type, and target sector. The app must output a structured prospect brief with source attribution, research quality scoring, stakeholder validation, power mapping, tension analysis, and a three-email outreach strategy.

Core requirements:
1. Intake screen with a large paste box, consultant profile form, and service type selector (technology, strategy, combined).
2. Parse the input into entities: executives, finance, events, competitors, and problem statements.
3. Calculate a 0–100 research quality score across stakeholders, financials, operational evidence, and recent events/competitive intelligence.
4. If the score is low or stakeholder coverage is insufficient, run an enrichment workflow that searches the web and annotates facts with citations, source URLs, timestamps, and confidence markers.
5. Show validated stakeholders with authority classification: primary, secondary, tertiary, plus budget/domain/influence signals.
6. Detect contradictions and tensions, classify them by root cause, and score relevance against the consultant service type from 0.00 to 1.00. Only tensions at or above 0.60 should appear in the main plan.
7. Generate a final brief with exactly six sections: Research Intelligence Assessment, Power Structure Map, Psychological Vulnerability Analysis, Engagement Strategy, Risk Assessment & Mitigation, Confidence Calibration.
8. Engagement Strategy must include three complete emails with TO / CONTACT / TIMING / CONTEXT headers, a minute-by-minute discovery call outline, and at least four objection responses.
9. Provide export to PDF and copy-to-clipboard for the final brief.
10. Include a confidence legend for verified, enhanced, inferred, and assumed statements.

Data model:
Account, ResearchInput, SourceDocument, Citation, Stakeholder, Event, Competitor, FinancialFact, Tension, RelevanceScore, OutreachEmail, DiscoveryScript, ObjectionResponse, ConfidenceFlag, ExportJob.

Tech stack:
Frontend: Next.js, React, TypeScript, Tailwind CSS, shadcn/ui.
Backend: Node.js with NestJS or Next.js API routes for orchestration.
Database: PostgreSQL with Prisma.
Queue: BullMQ with Redis for enrichment jobs.
Search: Postgres full text search plus a search API for web lookup.
Auth: Clerk or Auth.js.
Storage: S3-compatible object storage for raw uploads and generated exports.
Observability: PostHog for product analytics and Sentry for errors.

Build responsive desktop-first UI, clear source labeling, and strict schema validation so the model cannot invent unsupported facts. Make the app fast, forensic, and audit-friendly.

Business Idea

A.0 Misión y forma del sistema Misión. Convertir investigación de un prospecto en inteligencia psicológica de venta que haga que el ejecutivo piense "¿cómo sabían eso?". Extraer decisores reales, encontrar contradicciones reales en su negocio, cruzar esas contradicciones con lo que el consultor sí puede resolver, y producir una secuencia de contacto lista para ejecutar. Entrada (lo que el usuario pega): investigación del prospecto (ejecutivos, finanzas, eventos recientes, competidores, problemas) + perfil del consultor (problema que resuelve, tipo de expertise, sector objetivo). Salida (siempre 6 secciones, en orden fijo): evaluación de inteligencia → mapa de poder → análisis de vulnerabilidad → estrategia de contacto → riesgos → calibración de confianza. Cuatro principios rectores: Extraer, nunca inventar. Nombres reales, números reales, citas con fuente. Si un dato no existe, se dice y se busca. Cruzar capacidad con realidad. Un copywriter no arregla una quiebra. Solo se presentan tensiones donde el consultor puntúa ≥0.60 de relevancia. Psicología operativa, no decorativa. No listar sesgos: explicar por qué aplican (con evidencia) y cómo usarlos. Exigir especificidad. Cada afirmación traza a evidencia. Prohibidas las frases genéricas (lista al final). Sistema de marcado de fuentes (se usa en todo el output): ✓ dato de la investigación original · 🔍 dato encontrado en búsqueda de enhancement · ⚡ inferencia · ? asunción a validar. A.1 — FASE 1A: Puntuación de calidad de la investigación (obligatoria, primero) Antes de cualquier análisis se calcula un score 0–100, en 4 dimensiones de 25 puntos: 1. Validación de stakeholders (25) 3+ ejecutivos con nombre y cargo = 25 2 = 15 · 1 = 8 · 0 = 0 2. Datos financieros / de rendimiento (25) Ingresos concretos + crecimiento/financiación = 25 Rangos o estado de financiación = 15 · descripción general = 8 · nada = 0 3. Evidencia operativa (25) Métricas, fechas y eventos con números = 25 Retos/iniciativas generales = 15 · menciones estratégicas vagas = 8 · solo sector = 0 4. Eventos recientes + inteligencia competitiva (25) 2+ eventos (0–12 meses) + competidores nombrados = 25 1 evento + competidores, o 2+ eventos sin competidores = 15 1 evento o mención competitiva genérica = 8 · nada = 0 Umbrales que deciden la acción: 80–100 (ALTO): pasa directo al análisis. 60–79 (MEDIO): dispara enhancement obligatorio y luego analiza. <60 (BAJO): enhancement obligatorio + probable disclaimer de insuficiencia. Siempre se declara el score, el nivel y la confianza de forma explícita. A.2 — FASE 1B: Protocolo de enhancement (el corazón "vivo" del sistema) Se dispara automáticamente si se cumple cualquiera de estas tres condiciones (sin pedir permiso): menos de 3 stakeholders validados, o score <80, o faltan 2+ categorías de inteligencia. Es la parte que requiere herramientas de búsqueda web. El sistema declara primero los huecos ("Stakeholder: 1/3 — GAP; Financiero: ✓…") y luego ejecuta secuencias de búsqueda por categoría. Las 7 categorías y sus búsquedas (resumidas): Stakeholders — "[empresa] leadership team", "[empresa] CEO", "[empresa] [cargo según tipo de consultor]", org chart, LinkedIn Director+, notas de prensa de fichajes, 10-K si cotiza. Financiero — "[empresa] revenue / funding / Crunchbase / valuation / layoffs / acquisition", investor relations si cotiza. Escala — empleados, página de LinkedIn (nº de empleados), clientes, oficinas, headcount. Eventos recientes — noticias del año en curso, press releases, lanzamientos, posts de LinkedIn (últimos 90 días), entrevistas del CEO, premios. Competitivo — competidores, "[empresa] vs [X]", alternativas, líderes de la categoría, reseñas G2/Capterra, mensajería de la home. Criterios de validación (un dato no cuenta hasta que cumple esto): Stakeholder: nombre completo (6+ caracteres, no "el CEO"), cargo explícito, fuente <24 meses, empresa en la misma frase. Financiero: número/rango con fuente <12 meses; distinguir ingresos vs financiación vs valoración. Eventos: fecha o periodo concreto (no "recientemente") + descripción + fuente creíble. Competidores: nombre + confirmación de que están en la misma categoría + URL. Mapeo de autoridad (para cada stakeholder validado): Autoridad presupuestaria (¿aprueba el contrato solo?) Autoridad de dominio (¿es dueño del problema que resuelves?) Autoridad de influencia (¿tiene oído del CEO sin poder formal?) Y se clasifica: PRIMARY: presupuesto + dominio → objetivo principal. SECONDARY: dominio pero necesita aprobación → ganarlo y que te presente al PRIMARY. TERTIARY: solo influencia → intel / intro cálida, nunca pitch directo. Protocolo de fallo (Step 6): si tras buscar siguen faltando datos, se emite un disclaimer estructurado con: datos validados (✓), huecos críticos restantes, evaluación de riesgo estratégico por hueco, y tres opciones (declinar / proceder con disclaimer / investigación pagada con herramientas) + una recomendación justificada. Excepción <20 empleados: si la empresa es muy pequeña y un stakeholder es CEO/fundador con autoridad única, el umbral baja a 2 stakeholders. A.3 — FASE 2: Extracción de stakeholders y perfil psicológico Para cada stakeholder validado se construye, con evidencia, no un listado de rasgos sino un mapa de su realidad de negocio actual. Las cinco preguntas guía: ¿Qué decisión reciente tomó que ahora está bajo escrutinio? ¿Qué le humillaría profesionalmente? ¿Qué valida su criterio? ¿Qué le quita el sueño? ¿Cómo mantiene su estatus ante consejo / jefes / pares? Operativamente esto es análisis de la situación del comprador: detectar sus presiones reales a partir de evidencia (un CFO nuevo con presentación al consejo en 6 semanas → necesita victorias ya → cualquier crítica a la estrategia actual amenaza su credibilidad → punto de entrada: posicionar tu servicio como acelerador de su estrategia, no como sustituto). Es empatía de venta convertida en táctica, anclada siempre a datos. A.4 — FASE 3: Detección y clasificación de tensiones Una tensión es una contradicción real y visible en la investigación (no un patrón de sector): X ocurre a la vez que Y, y ambos están documentados. Ejemplos de generadores de tensión: lanzamiento sin resultados, fichaje sin mejora, financiación captada pero ingresos planos, premium en precio pero competidores 40% más baratos. Taxonomía de causa raíz (7 categorías): Causa raízSeñalesmessaging_failurerechazo de clientes, confusión de posicionamiento, percepción de marcaoperational_failureprocesos rotos, caída de eficiencia pese a inversión, cuellos de capacidadfinancial_crisisproblemas de caja, burn rate, inversión sin retornotechnology_failureplataforma/integración/deuda técnica, fallos de adopciónleadership_failurerotación de directivos, parálisis, gap visión-ejecuciónmarket_failurepérdida competitiva, caída de cuota, problema de product-market fitcultural_failurepicos de rotación, moral hundida, crisis de retención Para cada tensión: evidencia con cita y marcador, causa raíz, la contradicción concreta, la dimensión psicológica, y el score de relevancia del consultor. Filtro duro: solo se presentan tensiones ≥0.60. A.5 — La matriz de relevancia (el núcleo cuantitativo) Se identifica el tipo de servicio del consultor (8 tipos) y se cruza con la causa raíz de cada tensión. Tabla completa (filas = causa raíz, columnas = tipo de servicio; valor = capacidad de influir 0.00–1.00): Causa raíz \ Serviciomessagingmarketingstrategysalesoperationstechnologypeoplefinancemessaging_failure0.950.900.700.500.150.150.200.10operational_failure0.150.200.600.200.950.700.400.50financial_crisis0.250.500.850.700.600.200.300.95technology_failure0.100.150.500.100.700.950.300.40leadership_failure0.300.400.900.400.600.300.850.70market_failure0.700.900.950.850.400.300.200.50cultural_failure0.200.200.700.250.600.300.950.40 Interpretación: 0.80–1.00 impacto directo (tu expertise ataca la raíz) 0.60–0.79 factor contribuyente (tu skill apoya la solución) 0.40–0.59 influencia tangencial → excluir 0.00–0.39 influencia insuficiente → excluir Regla: si todas las tensiones puntúan <0.60, no se fuerza el análisis; se dice claramente "tu expertise no tiene influencia suficiente en este prospecto; cambia de tipo de prospecto". Nota para tu caso (SDG / data-analytics-IA): tu tipo de servicio principal es technology, pero parte de vuestra oferta (estrategia y gobierno del dato) es strategy. Esto importa porque cambia qué tensiones califican: Como technology: solo califican technology_failure (0.95) y operational_failure (0.70). El resto cae por debajo de 0.60. Como strategy: se abren leadership_failure (0.90), market_failure (0.95), financial_crisis (0.85), cultural_failure (0.70), messaging (0.70), operational (0.60). Recomendación: en el perfil de SDG, declara el tipo de servicio por engagement (o permite los dos), porque vender "implementación de plataforma" y vender "estrategia y gobierno del dato" activan tensiones distintas. Esto es un ajuste fino que tu sistema actual no contempla y que conviene meter en el perfil. A.6 — FASE 4: Validación de inteligencia competitiva (condicional) Regla crítica: nunca "el competidor X hace la táctica Y" sin evidencia. Solo se incluye si ayuda a explotar la vulnerabilidad del prospecto, y entonces hay que visitar la web del competidor, citar copy exacto con URL, y documentar la diferencia táctica con análisis del porqué. Si no se consiguen ejemplos concretos, se elimina la comparación entera. Mejor una tensión sólida con evidencia que tres mezclando probado y supuesto. A.7 — FASE 5: Construcción de la estrategia Para cada tensión ≥0.60: Mapeo del estado interno — reconstruir la realidad psicológica con evidencia (eventos recientes → presión; financiación → urgencia/runway; posicionamiento → qué está defendiendo). Sesgos + cómo usarlos — siempre con la tríada: por qué aplica (evidencia) → cómo usarlo (táctica) → qué respuesta esperar. Sesgos habituales: confirmación, aversión a la pérdida, coste hundido, recencia, disponibilidad, proyección. Secuencia de 3 emails escalada: Email 1 — Reconocimiento de patrón: demostrar que entiendes su situación mejor que nadie; validar su visión; crear "alianza interna". Email 2 — Inyección de urgencia: FOMO / aversión a la pérdida; presión competitiva o de calendario. Email 3 — Solución que salva la cara: camino de resolución que preserva el ego + primer paso de bajo riesgo. Script de discovery call minuto a minuto: Min 1–3: validar su visión, dejar hablar (sesgo de confirmación). Min 4–7: reencuadrar el problema como externo (percepción de mercado), no como su error → preserva el ego. Min 8–12: demostrar expertise con un caso paralelo. Min 13–15: urgencia + primer paso concreto de baja barrera. Pre-guion de objeciones (obligatorio, mínimo 4): equipo interno, agencia/proveedor, "no es el momento", precio (ver A.9). A.8 — Estructura de salida (siempre estas 6 secciones, en este orden) Research Intelligence Assessment — score original y mejorado, métricas clave (✓/🔍), ejecutivos, eventos, competidores, confianza, limitaciones. Power Structure Map — autoridad real vs formal; por cada objetivo: nombre, cargo, autoridad, email (encontrado con fuente, o formatos probables nombre.apellido@… + nota de verificar con hunter.io/rocketreach), LinkedIn (URL o búsqueda), actividad reciente. Psychological Vulnerability Analysis — solo tensiones ≥0.60, cada una con contradicción, contexto ampliado, causa raíz, realidad psicológica, alcance de tu influencia, estrategia de explotación, sesgos, resistencia esperada y neutralización. Engagement Strategy — objetivo principal + alternativos, cabecera de contacto completa en cada email (TO / CONTACT / TIMING / CONTEXT), copy completo de los 3 emails, framework de discovery, respuestas a objeciones, alternativa LinkedIn. Risk Assessment & Mitigation — 2–3 riesgos con probabilidad y mitigación + riesgos por huecos de inteligencia. Confidence Calibration — cuatro bloques separados: ✓ verificado · 🔍 enhanced (con la búsqueda usada) · ⚡ inferido (cadena lógica + riesgo) · ? asunción (método de validación). A.9 — Librería de objeciones (resumen operativo) Universales (todos los consultores): "ya lo lleva alguien interno", "trabajamos con agencia", "no es el momento", "¿precio?". El patrón común: reconocer la objeción de superficie → identificar la preocupación real → atacarla con evidencia → ofrecer paso de bajo riesgo (test pagado pequeño). Mapa de objeción → lo que de verdad dicen: "tenemos a alguien" = demuéstrame que fallan sin insultarlos "no es el momento" = no quiero admitir que mi estrategia falló "muy caro" = no veo el ROI claro "muy complejo" = no entiendo cómo funciona "déjame pensarlo" = no me has convencido de que eres diferente Específicas por tipo de consultor (copywriting, operaciones, RR.HH., estrategia, finanzas, tecnología…). Para SDG las relevantes son las de tecnología ("ya trabajamos con un proveedor/desarrolladores" → no es problema de proveedor, es problema de requisitos: construyen lo que pediste, no lo que necesitas; tú eres la capa estratégica por encima de la ejecución) y estrategia ("ya tenemos un plan" → tener un plan y ejecutarlo son cosas distintas; tus resultados contradicen tu plan → o el plan está mal o la ejecución está rota). A.10 — Reglas operativas críticas (las que no se saltan nunca) Siempre correr el enhancement si <3 stakeholders o score <80 (sin pedir permiso). Nunca avanzar sin validar stakeholders (criterios de A.2). No inventar. Siempre dar contacto completo por email (TO / CONTACT / TIMING). Siempre calcular y mostrar el score de relevancia; solo presentar ≥0.60. Siempre separar ✓ / ⚡ / ? (y 🔍). Nunca afirmaciones de competidor sin URL/evidencia. Siempre pre-guionizar ≥4 objeciones. Siempre copy de email completo (no descripciones tipo "el email debería mencionar…"). Explotar sesgos solo con la tríada por-qué/cómo/qué-esperar. Checklist de calidad obligatorio antes de entregar. Frases prohibidas (sustituir por concreto): "typically see improvement" → % real · "industry leaders" → nombres reales · "best practices" → enfoque concreto · "leverage synergies" → mecanismo concreto · "game-changing" → impacto cuantificado · "worth a conversation" → propuesta de valor específica. Tono: directo, forense, sin sentimentalismo; números y nombres, no patrones genéricos; honesto con las limitaciones.

Make My PRD

Design by The Resonance | Powered by GPC – The AI Transformation Company